A consultant, eh? I've run a consulting firm of my own. I'm not talking about my company in particular, either. Instead, I'm referring to the great many places I've seen both good and bad password management practices being employed. The difference between us in reference to the latter case is the fact that I've helped people find simple tools that would solve simple problems like these, thus preventing further issues down the road.

It's disturbing that you would attempt to use your work history as a consultant to reinforce (yet again) acceptance of bad information security practices. Perhaps your clients needed someone a bit more informed to help those in the trenches, and it makes me wonder what other bad practices you've spread around over the years.

Oh, the real world? Would that be the real world where multiple floors worth of offices at a company have employees using sound password management practices, frequently utilizing tools just like the ones I and others have pointed out?

Listen to yourself. You're trying to cover up for your own inability to take simple information security measures with baseless appeals to your imaginary view of what the world is like. You are dispensing security advice by attempting to continue to push that view, essentially making the case that it's perfectly normal and reasonable to continue doing stupid things because, hey, you do those stupid things.

Maybe the people around you share your attitude, but I assure you it isn't universal. So now you have a choice: either continue being ignorant and lazy, or do something useful with yourself and help those around you as well.

Based on comments like yours, you're not not a normal human being. You are a lazy human being. Normal people might ask "gee, how might I solve this problem?" Instead, you're adopting the "oh no, it's too hard" attitude.

I've been working with normal people who manage to memorize multiple passwords for fifteen years. They aren't programmers, either, although some people are naturally better at this than others. For those who have a lot of passwords to manage, there are a wealth of options available, including things like KeepPass, Password Safe, and many others. There are "local only" options, online options, portable options, etc.

Again, your fundamental problem is that you're lazy, and you're encouraging others to be lazy and adopt terrible security practices. Stop dispensing security advice, and stop attempting to speak for what others can or can't handle.

Why are you using the same password (or even very similar passwords) on multiple sites, especially for sites that involve sensitive personal healthcare and financial data? Are you aware that this very practice is the source of greatly increased rates of personal information compromise and identity theft, as compromising one set of credentials makes it much easier to access other systems? Further, are you aware that you're rolling the dice every time you create an account anywhere when it comes to whether the password you supply will even be properly hashed? Have you managed to entirely miss the nastier cases involving large organizations storing passwords in plaintext, or using deeply flawed hashing measures (outdated/weak algorithms, failing to use salt, etc) that fall to analysis within seconds?

With practices like yours, why are you dispensing security advice?

The GP asked about vector animation, not embedded video. These are different things; you can make videos of vector animations, but you can also have vector animations presented and controlled as fully accessible trees of objects in the DOM. Why are you talking about videos?

It's worth noting the GP's response to your post is quite accurate, however.

Flash is on its last legs. You need to start moving to HTML5 based solutions. A Google query for "HTML5 animation editor" will yield a wealth of options.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand instances of "alleged".

Quoting the original text:

I don't think the poster was intending to imply that BTC transactions are anonymous. In reply to his/her post, reiterating the oft-missed point that the protocol has no design attributes intended to enforce anonymity isn't splitting hairs; it's more a conversational response referencing the GP above that post. Also, an entity doesn't have to directly link itself to BTC transactions to be revealed as a participant, given sufficient analysis of all transactions. 1-1 transactions don't do much to frustrate traffic analysis, either. These are points that other posters have made, and you have missed.

Please read what I said again, and then read the rest of the thread beneath that comment.

Prove it. It's likely he had a number of eventual destinations in mind, unless he's a complete idiot, which he doesn't appear to be.

This demonstrates extremely thin understanding of the conditions under which it would be useful to torture someone, and of the actual information that could be gained as a result.

There are many ways of ensuring information gets out in the event of your demise. Reference "dead man's switch." Cheers.

Roger that (pun intended, if my guess is correct). Thanks for the backup; it's a bit unsettling how many people are taken seriously on topics like these when they don't actually know what they're talking about. Oh well, I suppose we get what we get.

A finite, but as of now undetermined, amount of data was conveyed to journalists. I am keenly interested in seeing objective proof that the sum of those disclosures is equal to the sum of all information in his possession. If you're planning on using Snowden's public statements in support of your view that everything he has is already in someone else's hands, I suggest you consult the dictionary for the definition of "naive."

I served in the United States Navy as a submariner, and I've been rather intimately involved with communications networks since around the age of eleven. You might be surprised to learn that I applaud Snowden's revelations regarding pervasive NSA surveillance of American citizens at home, abroad, and in interaction with allied nations. I doubt you have the depth of experience or context to fully appreciate why I applaud it, though, given your choice of the word "stole" to describe the materials in question. I prefer the term "returned," or perhaps "disclosed," as in "disclosed to the American people what their government had been doing in violation of their own Constitution," a document I swore an oath to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Again, I doubt you truly understand what that means.

Given Snowden's background, it doesn't seem he has issues with divulging information. As part of fleeing to Russia, I'm certain he understood that he would have many conversations with many interesting people. I hardly think any sort of "working over" will be necessary in this case.

Indeed on all points, and I'm still trying to figure out why people keep making the assumption that identity protection or obfuscation measures of any sort are part of the protocol. Maybe it's the "crypto" part of "cryptocurrency" that causes some kind of automatic correlation, although if that were the case one would think that the widespread use of cryptographic mechanisms for identity verification might encourage the opposite assumption.

I don't understand why people keep assuming Bitcoin is designed to be anonymous. It isn't.